Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mexico City isn't really safer than 2/3 of U.S cities for example the suburbs of Mexico City are often slums and its very likely many of these cities outside of the city are more dangerous than the city of Mexico and multiple times more dangerous than the suburbs of Flint, Detroit, Saint Louis (were only 11% of the metro actually lives in Saint Louis). I would say Mexico City area is as safe as New Orleans metro area, and due to the more even distribution of homicide than NOLA, CDMX likely feels more dangerous than New Orleans. Atlanta might be comparable to Mexico with the number of high crime suburbs in that city, but it's average suburb is still considerably safer than Mexico City's average suburb.
Mexico City isn't really safer than 2/3 of U.S cities for example the suburbs of Mexico City are often slums and its very likely many of these cities outside of the city are more dangerous than the city of Mexico and multiple times more dangerous than the suburbs of Flint, Detroit, Saint Louis (were only 11% of the metro actually lives in Saint Louis). I would say Mexico City area is as safe as New Orleans metro area, and due to the more even distribution of homicide than NOLA, CDMX likely feels more dangerous than New Orleans. Atlanta might be comparable to Mexico with the number of high crime suburbs in that city, but it's average suburb is still considerably safer than Mexico City's average suburb.
Have you ever been?
It's hard to take someone serious that says the majority of CDMX suburbs are slums.
Mexico City isn't really safer than 2/3 of U.S cities for example the suburbs of Mexico City are often slums and its very likely many of these cities outside of the city are more dangerous than the city of Mexico and multiple times more dangerous than the suburbs of Flint, Detroit, Saint Louis (were only 11% of the metro actually lives in Saint Louis). I would say Mexico City area is as safe as New Orleans metro area, and due to the more even distribution of homicide than NOLA, CDMX likely feels more dangerous than New Orleans. Atlanta might be comparable to Mexico with the number of high crime suburbs in that city, but it's average suburb is still considerably safer than Mexico City's average suburb.
The food there really, really is amazing (to above poster)
I see the point that you are making and that does make sense, but the thing, is we are just talking about the cities, and not the metros proper and overall. Yeah, for someone living in some of the lower income neighborhoods (Tepito), or surrounding towns, it is more unsafe than many or most places in the US. But, you have to also think about the fact that Mexico City Metro doesn't function quite like an American Metro. In an American Metro, you have satellite places around the city where many people don't even venture into the city proper rarely if at all, and you're correct that on average those places are safer than their Mexican counterparts.
But Mexico City doesn't necessarily require one to "venture around" like that, unless you are one of the lower income citizens living in/commuting to center from places like that, which I feel would make one not unlike the lifestyle/crime surroundings of a high crime neighborhood or suburb in the US (maybe in some cases more or less dangerous). I would be curious about whether Mexico City or a random US counterpart would have greater concentration of crime in certain areas as oppose d to others, and which has more randomized, "pulp fiction-style" crime overall. I'd imagine that neither has too much of either though.
Perfect example is the Cuauhtemoc Borough. From what I gather on Wikipedia at least, there are:
The borough covers 3,244 hectares or 32.44 km2, divided into 34 colonias, with 2,627 city blocks, 1,267,000 m2 of green areas, 1,500 buildings classified as national monuments, 2 archeological zones (Tlatelolco and Templo Mayor), 1,290 private buildings with official historic value (Valor Patrimonial de Propiedad Privada), 210 public buildings with official historic value (Valor Patrimonial de Propiedad Publica), 120 government buildings, and two major planned housing complexes (Unidad Habitacional Nonoalco-Tlatelolco and Centro Urbano Benito Juárez).[5] The borough contains 43 museums, 23 clock towers, 150 public and private libraries, 24 centers for infant development, 6 cultural centers sponsored by the borough,[6] 38 publicly sponsored markets with 14,434 vendors, 25 stage theaters, 123 movie theaters and 9 public sports complexes.
Realistically then, and with the significant business activity that goes on there as well, one could of course venture to nearby mountains or parks and be safe doing so, or pursuing other leisure activities in other areas. But they generally wouldn't need to leave this borough for almost anything in life. For the sake of that argument, I do agree that crime stats would worsen in comparison to US cities if we did consider the Metro as a whole. But considering that almost all visitors and even many locals wouldn't have reason to go to said places, I don't know that places like that (hate to pick on Neza which I hear is rapidly improving) should be counted, certainly not in the same way they would be in an American metro.
Yes, 5-10 miles away is completely different conditions in a number of cases, but millions of relatively affluent Chilangos go on throughout life without necessarily being forced to consider all of those things. To some degree, just like the US in fact.
It's hard to take someone serious that says the majority of CDMX suburbs are slums.
I didn't say the majority, I said their often slums. Similar to suburbs in Paris are often Slums/Ghettos/Low-income, yet Paris is ten times less murderous than any American city. In U.S cities like NOLA or Saint Louis the suburbs are the nicest areas of the cities and the home of the middle class and upper middle class and only the extreme wealthy and poverty stricken live in the city limits. When compared to Mexico were the state of Mexico has the same murder rate roughly as the City of Mexico you clearly see the murder rate is evenly distributed throughout the metro. I don' think their is a single U.S city were the suburbs as a whole doesn't have at least half the murder rate of the city and in cases like Saint Louis or NOLA the suburbs have like 1/10th of the rate of the city. While cities like Paris and Mexico City has large sections of suburbs that are just as violent as the city.
I actually don't know anyone who refers to it as CDMX. Everyone I know (all the Mexican people I know, to be specific), call it D.F.
Saying DF is a lot easier/quicker than saying CDMX, plus it was the name of the city for centuries. Either way, there's 8.8 million #CDMX posts on Instagram, so clearly there's a few people that refer to it as CDMX.
Mexico City Metro doesn't function quite like an American Metro. In an American Metro,
That's a good point. It was years ago, but I used to teach English in Sao Paulo Brazil and traveled throughout America.
I always felt it was the opposite of the United States. The closer I got to the center, the more wealth and security. The poorer you were, the longer commute you had to get into the center. Almost exact opposite of the U.S. where most of the poor get the prime real estate and convenience of the city (along with the crime), and everyone else is forced to commute long distances.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.